The learning that takes place through interfaith dialogue is one such example. The insight, emotions and experience generated by interfaith dialogue simply cannot be generated through reading textbooks. The color and depth that dialogue can add to understanding other’s faiths, one’s own faith, human psychology and society can in no way be attained through theoretical knowledge.

However, not everyone gains depth and understanding from such dialogue experiences. While some attain great levels of knowledge and wisdom, others gain nothing. Why is this so? How can two people with the same experience have such differing responses? There are three important principles which ensure that interfaith dialogue can be a teaching experience; firstly, to appreciate that interaction and sharing between people of different faiths is an important constituent of the learning experience. Secondly, to feel comfortable in knowing that interfaith dialogue and education about the “other” does not lead to confusion or conversion. Thirdly, to have the vision that dialogue can lead to cooperation.

Globalization and the increased need for education

In a globalized world where cultural and religious diversity is manifest, more awareness of the existence of other faiths and other worldviews outside our own immediate circle and society means increased interaction between people of different faiths and backgrounds. The need for knowing the “other” at some level becomes critical; lack of knowledge and interaction can dangerously reinforce the notion that the “other” is somehow alien. The moment the “other” is perceived as alien or foreign we enter unsafe grounds. As a result, education and dialogue have become strong instruments that are imperative for people seeking peace, ensuring that the “other” is not so alien.

A great deal has been written on the importance of learning through interfaith dialogue. In an article entitled “The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue,” Dr. Yucel highlights the importance of interfaith dialogue in educating ourselves about the “other”: “The root of conflict is ignorance and ignorance is the source of prejudice. To get to know each other through dialogue is essential for the establishment of a world peace.” Swidler explains how the consequences of not having dialogue can be quite serious, even deadly: “We can no longer ignore ‘the other,’ but we can close our minds and spirits to them, look at them with fear and misunderstanding, come to resent them, and perhaps even to hate them. This way of encounter can all too easily lead to hostility and, eventually, war and death.”

Due to the importance of knowing the “other,” interfaith dialogue has been taken very seriously in multi-faith Australia. There is great diversity in Australia, not only within the Christian population, but also within the non-Christian population. 64% of the Australian population is Christian. The largest Christian denominations are: Catholic (25.8% of the population) followed by Anglican (18.7%) and the Uniting Church (5.7%). The number of people affiliated with non-Christian faiths has almost doubled in Australia in the past 10 years. The largest non-Christian religions are Buddhism (2.1%), Islam (1.7%), Hinduism (0.7%) and Judaism (0.4%).

There are many organizations in Australia that are involved in interfaith dialogue. These organizations have been established by individuals of different faith backgrounds. Affinity Intercultural Foundation is an example of such an organization that was established by a group of young Australian Muslims in early 2001 in order to facilitate the interaction of the Muslim community with the members of other faiths and to increase the awareness and understanding of the Muslim community by the wider Australian society. Affinity has organized numerous events and projects to foster dialogue between different faiths and cultures.

Initiatives undertaken by Affinity Intercultural Foundation will be used to explain the three important aspects of interfaith dialogue that enable progressive learning.

Interaction and sharing between people of different faiths is an important element of the learning experience

Education through interaction and sharing can achieve many outcomes which cannot be achieved through the reading of text books, even if one was to read volumes and volumes of text books.

Whenever we interact with each other, our ignorance is highlighted and we realize that there is clearly a gap in our knowledge of one another. We make assumptions, we stereotype and we pretend we know when we don’t. We come to the realization that we have no idea about certain things or that what we knew was incorrect.

Through interactions, we ask, we witness, we experience, and we learn. This type of learning becomes internalized because it has been experienced.

Sharing of sacred times is a good example of such learning; non-Muslims going to Muslim homes for iftar (breaking of the fast) during the month of Ramadan, Muslims visiting the church at Easter or Christmas or the synagogue for Sukkot or Hanukkah.

I have been told that entering a home where the last minute iftar preparations are taking place is quite a unique experience for a non-Muslim. The realization that nothing, absolutely nothing has been eaten all day and the witnessing of that first meal, is quite profound. So profound that it leads to many questions: Did you get really hungry today? How does fasting help you to connect with God? Does fasting make you feel more humble? As the meal is shared, the conversation leads from one topic to another.

The experience becomes even more interesting when the non-Muslim guests choose to fast for the day, purely to share the experience with their Muslim hosts. It becomes a trigger for further discussion as individuals reflect on their experience of fasting.

Such interactions and sharing can be defined as multi-dimensional education, as there is so much learning taking place through our words, actions, experiences, emotions and thoughts. Similarly, there is so much we learn from observing the experience of the other individuals. It is a learning which is alive and positively life-changing, an experience that cannot be replaced through the reading of volumes and volumes of textbooks.

Interfaith dialogue and education about the “other” does not lead to confusion or even conversion

A common misconception about interfaith dialogue is that listening to others talk about their faith will lead to confusion about our own faith. Some also believe that there is a danger that we will settle for the “lowest common denominator” or a “watered-down” version of our faiths. In reality, the opposite scenario has become the norm in interfaith dialogue circles; people actually feel that they learn more about their own faith and become better Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Hindus through interfaith dialogue.

A project that has demonstrated this point is the Home Encounters project. Home Encounters is a community-based educational approach involving Muslims and Christians meeting on a monthly basis over six months.

At each meeting a new topic, such as monotheism, spirituality, or poverty, is covered from both a Christian and Muslim perspective. This is followed by an informal discussion and a question-and-answer session.

For previous groups who have participated in this project the experience has generated profound understandings of the other in their frame of reference. The key to success is the establishment of an atmosphere of trust in the informal setting of the participants’ homes, alternating between Christian and Muslim homes, and a willingness to understand. The right atmosphere and right attitude produce an environment of learning and sharing.

An insightful reflection by one of the participants of the first encounter reaffirms the presence of such an atmosphere:

Plates of Divine sweet talk gently moved across and around the table. So harmonious was the aroma of dialogue, so sweet was the taste of familiarity in beliefs that unity gently touched all hearts… And as the question and answers were shared like a summer dessert over coffee, learning, reflecting, understanding and peacefully digesting the different spices of faith, everyone only gained more appetite…

An outcome of the project, which surprised many of the participants, was that the discussions increased the participants’ level of knowledge and understanding of their own faith tradition. Reading up on the topic of discussion, studying the topic in preparation for a fifteen-minute presentation and finally hearing the topic being discussed and analyzed from various angles not only helped them to learn about the topic from the other faith perspective, but it also deepened their understanding of the topic from their own faith perspective.

The dialogue that takes place during the question-and-answer session are mentally stimulating as the questions that are asked by an individual from another faith are usually very different to the questions we would be asked by someone from our own faith. This enables us to consider the topic from unique angles, resulting in a more all-encompassing understanding. For example, a Muslim won’t often ask “Do you have a concept similar to the Holy Spirit in Islam?” or “How do you relate to God if you do not know what God looks like?” But these questions prompt a Muslim to search the answers to these questions, and by the end one has generated a deeper understanding of God, His Names, His Attributes and how they are manifested.

This deeper understanding is a mutual experience. This was confirmed by Rev. Grahame Ellis who also participated in Home Encounters; here he reflects on his first encounter:

… it was a Muslim question that compelled me as a Christian to this new affirmation…The fact is that I would not have had this insight if it had not been for a Muslim.

Such reflections highlight the importance of creating a positive environment so that true learning can take place through discussion, reflection, and investigation.

Dialogue leads to co-operation

Once a relationship has been developed and there is trust between the different faith groups, it is only natural that this will lead to cooperation. One of the first areas where there can be cooperation is education. Youth Encounters offers exactly this.

Youth Encounters, a project which involves four Muslim schools, four Christian schools and four Jewish schools has been organized every year since 2004. As part of the project, senior high school students from the participating schools go through training to prepare them for an end of year gala. The gala involves workshops where the students from the different schools come together and discuss various topics such as “my identity.” For many Christian students, this is the first time they meet a Muslim or a Jew. And for many Muslim and Jewish students, this is the first time they have the chance to converse at a deep level with a Christian.

The results are amazing. At the beginning of the gala, the students are quiet, unsocial, and serious, staying together with the students from their own school. However, by the end of the day, the students from different schools are having deep conversations, asking each other all sorts of questions and even exchanging email addresses to continue communicating with their new friends.

One student said, “I had never had an intimacy or conversation with other people with different beliefs. But we found a common ground which I didn’t know was possible.”

Another student admitted, “It takes away the textbook Jew and the textbook Catholic. It’s really interesting; you just have to try it. It’s an experience that you just can’t read from a paper.”

On the adult level, some projects have included co-operation in the areas of environment and peace. Coming together for a common concern facilitates unity and helps us to see our commonalities as we all strive to achieve certain goals that affect all of us, no matter what faith or culture we belong to. These are concerns which focus on our humanness and the emotions that come with being human, such as compassion towards those who die in places of conflict or feeling a sense of responsibility towards the environment.

An example of an initiative focusing on the environment is PowerShift 09, the first national youth summit on climate change; held in Australia, this event attracted 1,200 young adults from around the country. As was evident at this summit, there is a powerful unity that forms when addressing issues such as the environment. Awareness befalls upon all, this is an issue that must be tackled by all; otherwise the consequences will be felt by all. Thus, when we realize that we all share the same hopes, the same fears, and the same aspirations, a realization that comes with interfaith dialogue, co-operation comes easily.

In conclusion, the learning that takes place through interfaith dialogue plays a critical role in the globalized world in which we live. Thus we can attain a dialogue that is based on interaction, learning that leads to clarification, and a better understanding that leads to co-operation. It is through this learning that the attitudes of not only our youth, but the whole community changes for the better. Positive attitudes mean positive relationships, a key element for a harmonious society.

Zuleyha Keskin is the Vice President of ISRA (Islamic Sciences and Research Academy of Australia), Auburn, Australia.

Our Friend

in the beauty of

countless vibrant hearts

strongly sinewed

in purifying love.

We meet you

Our Friend

in the steadfast

prayerful care

of blessing hands

and radiant faces.

We meet you

Our Friend

in attentive minds

and quickened spirits

devoted to guiding

our journey together.

We meet you

Our Friend

in crescendoed voices

reverberating the praises

of the Only Holy One

Whose lowly servant you are.

Salaam.

– Bernadette & Daniel Skubik

Bernadette and Daniel live in Riverside, CA. Daniel Skubik is a professor of law, ethics, and humanities in California Baptist University.

Only 0.15 % of the energy that reaches the earth is used by the plants and the algae as a source of energy for photosynthesis. The energy that is stored in the form of chemical energy within the photosynthetic plants establishes the source of energy for the food that is consumed by the creation. The past creation, as a result of the physical-chemical processes, was fossilized and solar power has been stored in the form of fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas).

Energy consumption and the environment

Energy consumption is viable for every form of work; the waste is what remains in the environment. This waste does not pose a problem as long as they do not damage the sensitive ecologic balance. However, rapid industrialization and urbanization, which lead to excessive amounts of energy consumption, result in environmental problems. Since industrialization-urbanization is directly related to energy consumption – particularly with fossil fuels – industrialized countries are more vulnerable to experiencing environmental problems. In today’s world, it is climatic change – a product of global warming – among these problems that is of the greatest global importance.

The increase in the proportion of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere is the main factor for global warming. This increase is directly related to the consumption of fossil fuels. The rays of the sun, which are reflected from the earth, are trapped by carbon dioxide gases (chlorofluorocarbon, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases, such as water vapor) in the atmosphere, and they can not return to space. This, in turn leads to the atmosphere heating up (the greenhouse effect), eventually leading to an increase in heat throughout the world.

The main reason for the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the consumption of fossil fuels (77%) and the decrease in the number of forests (23%). Coal gas is normally the last product of the anaerobic processes in nature. In recent years human intervention played the main role in this abnormal increase in gases. Playing an important part in this process is the expansion in rice fields (38%) in order to feed the increasing population, natural gas extraction and its transfer (16%), an increase in the number of cattle (14%), coal mining (12%), and the oxidation of produced biomass (6%). Chlorofluorocarbon is included in industrial products. As for the nitrous oxides, they are the by-products of reactions in the nitrogen cycle in nature. In recent years, as a result of the increase in the use of the nitrogenous manures (85%), forest fires and other fires (11%), and the oxidation of the produced biomass (7%) there has been a rise in nitrous oxide. Consequently, the rapid increase in greenhouse gases in the last years has lead to a 0.5°C increase in the average heat of the earth.

If the greenhouse gases continue to be accumulated at this speed, then by 2100 the average heat of the earth will record an increase of 2–4°C compared to the period before industrialization. Eventually, there will be a greater melting of the glaciers at the poles, which will lead to 0.5–1.5 % increase in sea level. Thus, residential areas by the seaside, agricultural areas, wetlands and industrialized areas will face the danger of being flooded. Moreover, the risks of climatic changes and desertification will become much more severe.

Some countries are investigating how to calculate the probable effects of a decline in water, food and energy resources and what precautions need to be taken accordingly as a result of global warming. In this sense, the problem was clearly indicated during the summit meetings in Vienna (1985), Rio (1982), and Kyoto (1997), however, they have not been sufficient to provide a solution.

Another important problem arising from the overuse of fossil fuels is the damage to the environment caused by air pollution and acid rain. During the consumption of fossil fuels, CO2, NOx, and SOx are emitted into the atmosphere and these, combining with water vapor, lead to the formation of carbonic acid (H2CO3), nitric acid (HNO3) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4). While normally the pH of rain water is 5.5–6, with these acids it falls down to 3.5–4. This and the resultant dissolution of the metals in the water pose a threat for both the land and the aquatic ecosystems (e.g. a decline in fish species in many lakes) and impair the ecologic balance.

The impact of alternative and renewable energy on the environment

The negative impact of fossil fuels on the environment and the decline in their reserves has accelerated the search for new energy resources. Even though nuclear energy is not a renewable resource, today it has come to be regarded as an alternative energy resource all around the world. Hydrogen, too, is another growing alternative resource. Geothermal energy is also a renewable energy resource, yet it is mostly restricted to the region where it originates.

With current technology, it costs us more to use solar energy rather than to extract fossil fuels. Moreover, there is a great need for the development of new technology that is aimed at producing wind, hydroelectric, bio-energy, tidal and wave energy in the most efficient way at the lowest cost.

Defeated by their ambitions, human beings, particularly in the last century, have destroyed the world and the environment that has been entrusted to them. Since the global impact and the cost of this process only emerged recently, it was too late before human beings realized that they needed to shift from energy systems based on fossil fuels. All the worries and concerns that have surfaced today is not because we have finally realized that the earth has been entrusted to human beings, but simply because the future seems to be promising nothing but destruction. Thus, the real solution to the problems is not related to acting to find a solution to the problems, but rather in being in compliance with the measures of the actual Owner of the world and the universe and avoiding form all types of extremism.

References

• Spiro Thomas G. and Stigliani William M. 1996. Chemistry of the Environment, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.
• Godish Thad. 1997. Air Quality, CRC Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, New York.
• World Energy Outlook. 2004. International Energy Agency.

Turning to the path that Bosnian identity has followed in the New World, we must first recognize that ethnic identity and religion can intersect at different angles. Over the course of my encounters with members of the Bosnian community, I have come to observe that Bosnian refugees consider themselves Muslims in a cultural sense, a sense they said was generally devoid of actual practical content. This suggests a conception of ethnic identity perceived to be one and the same thing as religious identity. This “culture=religion” formulation may help explain, at least in part, the rather scarce presence of Bosnian Muslims in American mosques in cities where Bosnian refugees have resettled (This, however, should not be construed to mean that one can express piety only by going to the mosque; the role and function of mosques in American society would itself require another essay). The relative indifference of important segments of the Bosnian population toward religious practice is additionally due to the lack of understanding and focus on the suffering of Bosnian Muslims during the 1992–1995 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The influence of recent memories of not having been treated fairly by the international community-including the Muslim world-during the war, it was reported to me, plays a role in the scarce presence of Bosnian Muslims in the greater American Muslim community.

Among Bosnian refugees in the city of Syracuse, statements by both the refugees themselves and the officials of the Islamic Society in Syracuse confirm the actualization of the “culture=religion” identity formulation amongst Bosnians in Syracuse. Some young Bosnians, for example, do not attend in big numbers at the otherwise compulsory congregational Friday prayer performed in the multinational Syracuse mosque. My own observations and the remarks of the officials from the Islamic Society confirm that no more than ten per cent of the Bosnian Muslim population attends the Friday prayer. Nevertheless, these same youth convey the unease they feel when their identity as Muslims is questioned (especially by non-Muslims in the workplace, at school et cetera). Bosnians have recently launched a mosque of their own in the eastern part of the city; however, leading members of the community told me the number of attendees in Friday prayers since the facility opened about two years ago is far less than they would have liked. However, attendance of commemorative events and bajram (eid) celebrations is remarkably more sizeable.

At the same time, some Bosnian Muslims have expressed discontent regarding the prevailing formulation in which religion is perceived as a cultural décor. There are sincere efforts by some members of the Bosnian population toward an authentic religious identity filled with actual content. Included among such efforts are the weekend classes offered at the Bosnian mosque, in particular for young Bosnian children, in which the essentials of faith, practical information about prayers, and similar topics are taught. But I have also been privy to conversations in which concerns were being raised that some young Bosnians have for some time been, to use their word for it, “Americanizing”: They are not as respectful toward their elders any more, they come home late, and drink-all of which suggest to the concerned that there are dangers ahead which might arise from experiments with American notions of freedom. Though one could argue that these notions do not necessarily or always imply these behaviors, it is important to recognize that Bosnian youth are growing up in an individualistic culture that includes values and practices which parents might find to be at odds with their own upbringing back in Bosnia. Coupled with the lack of adequate parental supervision over children due to demanding work schedules, this clash of values is a cause of concern for a youth that is not given the guidance to navigate through the intricacies of becoming American. In addition, a Bosnian friend of mine, who is currently a professor of political science, reminded that the refugees will soon face another hurdle: the increasing inability of young Bosnians to speak the Bosnian language. He claims that Bosnian children in particular speak only English among themselves, raising the probability that in a generation or two, the Bosnian language may become rare among Bosnians themselves.

Refugees from Srebrenitza living in Syracuse seek to keep the memory of the Srebrenitza massacre of 1995 alive. They publish booklets in English and Bosnian languages, issue bumper stickers (‘Never Forget Srebrenitza’), and hold commemorative ceremonies on the anniversary of the event. Bosnian Muslims concerned about the future of Bosnian identity in the New World see these activities as vital in terms of constructing a collective Bosnian consciousness in America.

It seems quite clear, at least to this observer, that the hyphenated identity term “Bosnian-American” is on its way to becoming the standard description to use in relation to Bosnians in the United States. The exact referent of that term will become clearer based on certain issues including (but certainly are not limited to), on the one side, the scope, nature, and effects of their feelings toward America, and on the other, their choice between cultural or practical religion.

Fethi Keles is an Adjunct Instructor of Anthropology at Syracuse University.

This is the Winner essay of our 2010 writing contest conducted in cooperation with Everest Productions. Participants were asked to write down to live out what truly mattered to them most assuming they were told they had only three days left in this life.

Time-our most precious commodity-may seem infinite, but it is also unrecoverable. Once a moment is spent, it is gone forever. This is because we are linear beings. We are born into this world at Point A-our Arrival-and then move forward from there, making some detours along the way. We wander-sometimes aimlessly-to Point B, taking a spouse, perhaps, or throwing ourselves into our careers. Later, we meander to Point C, which is trying to enjoy our lives on the way to old age. But ultimately we all arrive at the same destination, which is Point D-our Death. There are no exceptions to this rule, and it is not an arguable point. We cannot sue God to recoup the losses of our misspent youth, and the universe has one iron-clad policy regarding time: YOU WASTE IT, YOU’VE LOST IT. So, with this information firmly in mind, I ask myself: “What would I do if I had only 72 hours left to live?” It is an interesting question that is difficult to answer because I have spent the majority of my adult life in prison. Which, incidentally, is where I am now.

I am currently serving a 6-year sentence and have no way of knowing if I will ever see the streets again. I am forty-five years old and healthy, but as we all know-tomorrow is promised to no one. So this question of 72 hours intrigues me on several levels, the first of which is: “What would it be like to die alone in prison?” I rarely speak with my family, and while I do have a couple of good friends, they are not here. So here I would die, and alone it would be. The implications of that statement have shaken me in a way that until a few days ago I would have thought impossible. I can barely imagine lying here on my prison bunk, knowing that soon I would close my eyes, never to open them again. I have accomplished nothing of importance in my life, and with 72 hours to live there would be virtually no chance of me doing anything to benefit this world or anyone in it. Sure, I have written five novels, but much like me, they are lying dormant doing nothing to benefit anyone. The thought that they would never be published makes me want to cry. In fact, I can feel that thought wrenching my heart as I write this very sentence. Nevertheless, all of that is a very selfish way of thinking, but it is with that self-centered attitude that I am most comfortable. Due to my addiction and abuse of alcohol, I have led a very selfish life. I rarely gave more than a passing thought to the feelings or well-being of others. Now, however, I will admit this: I feel quite remorseful of the way I have treated others. I am not a heartless person; I just had to close my heart to combat the pain of addiction, and then the emptiness of long-term incarceration. I wasn’t always like that, of course. I was even in love once-a long, long time ago. I remember it like it was yesterday, but that is only because nothing of importance has happened to me since. It’s funny now, more than twenty years later, but I can still remember the way she kissed. I still miss her sometimes. If I had only 72 yours left to live, I would probably think a lot about her. It was the last time that I was truly happy.

But happy memories are self-indulgent, and with my life-clock ticking down, I believe that the time would have finally arrived for me to make peace with myself. I have never forgiven myself for wasting the talents and gifts that God has given me. I am not a stupid man: I know for a fact that I could have helped others. I could have made a difference. I could have shown people how to avoid walking down the same lonely roads that I have traveled. I could have shown them how important it is to be able to smile at yourself in the mirror, and how empowering it is to thank God every day for all that has occurred-good or bad. But I didn’t. Instead, I spent my life at the bottom of a vodka bottle, doing nothing but feeling sorry for myself. What a waste. What a complete and shameful waste.

So here, now, lying on a prison bunk contemplating the prospect of having 72 hours to live, sadly, I suppose, that for me it would all come down to regrets. The biggest of these would be that I never had children. Not because I don’t like them-because I do-but because I grew up without a father, and I could never bring myself to inflict that kind of pain on my own child. And since I was unable to stop drinking, it was a certainty that I would always be in prison. Nevertheless, I have to say that just once in my life it would have been nice to get a big goodnight hug along with an, “I love you, Daddy.”

But in the end I suppose that I would use my last few hours searching for the meaning of life. Not in some universal sense, but in a very personal-and, as usual-selfish way. I would like to say that I would put aside my life-long obsession with gratifying my own immediate desires, but the truth is – I have no idea how to do that. Selfless acts seem a mystery to me, yet I don’t know why. Even in the past when I’ve done the smallest of kindnesses, such as giving spare change to a homeless person, I am sure that somewhere in the back of my mind I was thinking, “Did you see that God? When you get a chance, could you jot that down on my scorecard?”

And-yes-I do believe in God. So in those last few hours I would be constantly calling Him on His cell phone, asking Him to forgive me for my past indiscretions. He would forgive me, being the loving and merciful God that He is, and maybe that is what my entire existence here on earth would boil down to those last few moments in which I realize that I have done nothing to be worthy of God’s mercy and grace, but will receive it anyway.

So again-here, now-lying on this prison bunk, it’s difficult to find any one thing that I could do to make a difference. I am open to any revelations or epiphanies that God might like to place on my heart because after having caused so much pain on my brief journey through this world, I would dearly love to “shuffle off this mortal coil,” believing that I have left this place a little better than how I found it.

It’s a lovely thought.

It is an interesting question.

Which is why I find it so disturbing that in an infinite universe full of limitless possibilities, I am still unable to offer a satisfactory answer.

There is explicit information in the divine scriptures that the Great Flood did take place, and that it was a divine message to humanity. About these two points, most of the members of the three Abrahamic religions, and even members of many other faiths, do not have a problem at all. But if we want to draw detailed information about the flood, then we see many topics of discussion: was it a local or global flood? What were the number and kinds of animals in the ark? What was the size of the ark? What was the date of the event? And so on.

In the Qur’an, we are not given all of the details of the flood event. In fact, we should not expect to find all of the details in the revelation, because its primary goal is to inculcate love and respect of God in people, not to teach them science or history. So, from a religious perspective, details such as whether the flood was local or global, whether the ark was powered or not, etc., are irrelevant. What matters is that human beings are not left to their own in this life, and that they have a responsibility towards their Creator. What is more, if dealing with such undisclosed details is diverting us from the main point, this means we are being blinded by what we think we know; not illuminated. Maybe, this is why we are not given in the Qur’an those details. So, one needs to be careful in this regard.

However, keeping the mentioned warnings in mind, for a person eager to discover other signs of God that are invisible at first glance, the doors of study are wide open. Accordingly, when scholars set out to make a complete picture of the Great Flood based on the information from the revelation, at times they rationally fill in the missing details, or interpret already existing ones. And this is exactly where the discussions start.

In this article, it is our intention to make a brief analysis of the Islamic sources on this issue. In doing this, Qur’anic verses [1] and the exegesis of these verses by three prominent Muslim scholars from the classical and modern era (Hamdi Yazir, Fahr al-Din al-Razi, and Ibn Kathir) are going to be our main references. Then, with the knowledge and comprehension of a contemporary mind, the suggestions of these scholars are going to be scrutinized, again based on the information from the Qur’an [2]. Our aim is to show that there is still room for discovery in the story of the Great Flood, that there probably are other signs of God not revealed so far.

Before we begin, we also would like to underline what is not our intention. Just as in the case of a miraculous feeding of hundreds of people from a bowl of food, it is nonsense to discuss what quantum mechanical processes might have led to such a result, it is similarly futile to try to entirely explain the Great Flood in a cause-effect chain. If something is a miracle, it means that God performs it out of the confines of His practice [3] (what we call as “God’s customs” are referred to as “cause-effect chain” by some scientists). But if it is not a miracle, such as the presence of the little amount of food initially in the miracle of abundance, then it can be scrutinized in terms of God’s customs. Therefore, while discussing the Great Flood, we need to keep in mind this criterion to distinguish between its miraculous and customary parts.

Another point that is not intended is to shake the reliability of scholars in religious matters. Those scholars had not only the best and sincerest of intentions to understand the revelation, but also the fear of God lest they misrepresent the content of the revelation. So, the discussion in this article should not invalidate the reliability of the scholars in essential matters of faith, since our discussion is focused on secondary issues rather than primary ones.

Having outlined what is intended and what is not, let’s start.

Persisting questions

Based on different combinations of interpretations of the existing information from the Qur’an, you could derive several variances of the Great Flood. In this article, we are going to briefly question the prevailing flood scenario suggested by scholars.

Was it a local or a global flood?

There is still debate about whether the flood was local or global. Let’s analyze the two cases, starting with the global scenario. When we say global, it is not necessarily a flood that is covering the entire surface of the earth, but rather the majority of it, and also it affected the entirety of humanity. Conversely, a local flood is one that affects a minor part of the earth and only a part of humanity. In this regard, the prayer of the Prophet Noah calling for the destruction of the unbelievers is taken by some scholars as a sign for a global flood.

Noah also said: “My Lord! Do not leave on the earth any from among the unbelievers dwelling therein.” (Noah 71:26)

One can say that his prayer does not necessarily point to its fulfillment, and this is a fair objection. But, when Noah prayed for the salvation of his unbelieving son, a relatively minor issue, he was corrected at once, and we are informed about it in the Qur’an:

Noah called out to his Lord, saying: “O my Lord, my son was of my family, and Your promise is surely true, and You are the Most Just of Judges.” (God) said: “O Noah he is not of your family. He is one of unrighteous conduct. So do not ask of Me what you have no knowledge of. I admonish you so that you do not behave as one among the ignorant.” (Noah) said: “O my Lord! I seek refuge in You, lest I should ask of You what I have no knowledge of. And unless You forgive me and have mercy on me, I will indeed be among the losers.” (Hud 11:45–47)

One would think that if God is telling us a correction to a minor issue, He would certainly let us know about a correction to a major issue. The fact that such a correction is missing can be understood as the fulfillment of the prayer. So, in this regard, the Qur’an contains information that can lead to a global flood scenario [4].

If we consider the local flood scenario, first of all, we see that it, too, has support from revelation. According to a verse in the Qur’an, Noah was not a global prophet, but was only sent to his people (Noah 71:1). If the flood came due to his situation among his people, only those who are in his community should be affected. Thus, it was a local flood.

Another detail supporting the local flood idea is the way Noah was consoled by God before they went out of the ark after the flood.

He was told: “O Noah! Get you down in peace and safety from Us, and with blessings upon you and upon the communities who are with you. Communities – We will provide for them to enjoy themselves for a term and then there will visit them from Us a painful punishment.” (Hud 11:48)

Looking at this verse, Razi concludes that Noah was worried about how they are going to survive after all that happened. And so, God consoled Noah telling him to go out in peace and abundance. Such peace and abundance would not be possible in a place that was totally devastated by the flood. Aside from this, the same verse has a reference that can be interpreted as the sign of other communities on the earth after the flood. These clues altogether support a local flood scenario.

How about the animals in the ark?

Information from the Qur’an about the gathering of the animals is as follows:

Until the time when Our command came and the boiler started boiling over, We said: “Embark in it a pair of each kind, and your family, except those against whom Our sentence has already been passed, and those who believe.” And those who believed with him were few. Noah said, “Board it! In God’s Name be its course and its mooring. Surely my Lord is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate.” (Hud 11:40-41)

There are several questions, however, about the involvement of the animals in this story. These questions are mainly due to the assumption that there were thousands of animals on board.

If we assume that there were thousands of species on board, the first question is “how did thousands of species get together?” Is it just an obvious miracle that Noah calls the animals, and suddenly all of the animals start rushing to the ark? If we assume that they were somehow collected, how is it possible that animals which live in totally opposite climate conditions could survive in the ship? What kind of an ark can contain hundreds of thousands of different animals on board? How about their food, was the ark big enough to contain sufficient food to feed thousands of animals for a long time? Considering the small number of believers on the ark, how were the animals cared for? Were the animals free to wander around in the ark? How come they did not create terror in there or devastate it? How were hygiene conditions met while all those creatures coexisted in the same place with humans?

Contrary to the number of questions listed above, there is no information in the Qur’an about the state of the travelers while on board. Can the absence of such information point to something else that we are missing, for example another miraculous event while in the ark that can answer our questions?

Was the ark a sail-type or was it powered?

Some contemporary Islamic scholars claim that it was powered by a kind of steam engine. This conclusion is arrived through the Qur’anic phrase “farat-tannur” (Hud 11:40–41), which means “a boiler that is boiling over.” But this conclusion of the Muslim scholars also entails several questions.

A ship does not need an engine if it is only meant to float. As long as it has hydrodynamic stability and structural strength, it can do the job. Let’s say the engine is needed to maneuver the ship according to a predetermined route. However, there is no clue in the divine descriptions for the presence of such a route. Furthermore, one verse in the Qur’an clearly reports that the route of the ark is up to God (Hud 11, 41). Then, why is the engine needed in the first place, even if it did really exist?

As a result, we are left with this mind-intriguing phrase “farat-tannur,” which needs a meaningful explanation. Whether Noah’s ark was powered or not is still uncertain.

What is the clear sign for all worlds?

In the Qur’an, we are told that “it is a sign for all worlds – ayatan lil alemin” (Ankabut 29:14–15) [5]. Scholars tell us that the pronoun it could either refer to the ark or to the flood. However, the things that are attributed to a “sign” in the Qur’an are obvious things. If we assume that the clear sign for all is the ark, then it must be available to us for it to become a sign. So, it is unlikely that the sign mentioned in the verse is the ark.

On the other hand, the pronoun it could refer to the flood story as the clear sign for all, which is currently more plausible than the ark being the sign. But, there are several other destruction stories in the Qur’an which could potentially be a clear sign for all. What makes Noah’s story so special aside from the others so that only it is mentioned as “a sign for all,” and a separate chapter in the Qur’an is reserved for it? This question becomes even more pronounced if the flood was only a local one. How come a local flood involving limited number of people is so distinct from the other destruction stories, and can become a clear sign for all until the end of time?

What is the water of the sky, and where is it coming from?

The start of the flood-related events is explained in the Qur’an as follows:

So We opened the gates of the sky, with water outpouring; and We caused the earth to gush forth with springs, so the waters combined for a matter already ordained. (Qamar 54:11–12).

There are several curiosity-arousing points in this explanation, some of which are mentioned below.

The distinctive explanations for the two waters given in the verse bring the question whether this rain water could be an unusual one [6, 7]. Curious enough, the literal translation of the quoted verse says “the water met,” not “waters combined.” Some scholars say that such singular mentioning is due to the fact that water is a single entity whether its origin is a spring or rain. However, if we consider the water of the sky as something other than regular water, then the verse becomes literally explicit, because it is actually only the water of the earth that is meeting something from the sky. According to the rules of interpreting the Qur’an, such literally explicit and rational meaning is preferable over an interpreted one.

Second, the gates of the sky are told to be opened by the coming of the water, not “the water is let go by the gates.” Along the same lines, in the Qur’an, the explanation of the events of the end of times involves an opening of the sky. Could gates of the sky have anything to do with events other than just rain?

An interim solution

A scenario suggested by Islamic scholars that can resolve several of the questions stated so far assumes that the humanity at the time of Noah was not much populated, and was a single tribe [8]. Thus, a local flood that threatens the small human population does not necessitate the gathering of all of the animals on the earth. Instead, only animals sufficient to sustain the life in the immediate aftermath of the flood are gathered in the ark. The people around Noah would step on land and make their living from these animals, and as time goes by, the rest of the animals elsewhere on the earth would re-populate the once-flooded regions.

However, this local flood story brings with it some problems. If it was a local flood, and if the ark was only large enough to contain a few believers and a few animals, where is the greatness of the Great Flood, where is the clear sign for all worlds? What is the big deal with the water of the sky and earth, if it suffices to have a local flood, which can even be achieved with regular rains? Why did God explicitly give the instructions for the construction of the ark to Noah, if it is a local flood that people could survive by a regular ark?

Conclusion

The discussion presented in this article shows the gist of the debates surrounding the idea of the Great Flood. Yet, despite hundreds of years of study, there is no satisfactory scenario that can answer all these, and possible other, questions. In any case, what we know for sure is that whether it is a global flood or a global warming, we should not wait for clear signs to appear in order for us to obey the Lord of the worlds; because when they appear, it may be too late.

Sermed Ogretim has a PhD in Aerospace Engineering and is currently working as a postdoctoral fellow at West Virginia University. He has a special interest in psychological fiction.

Notes

1 The translations of the Qur’anic verses are taken from Ali Unal’s The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, The Light Inc., NJ, USA, 2006.

2 For certain points in the discussion, we are going to provide supplementary information from the Old Testament that is in agreement with the Qur’an.

3 Erdin, M., “Are Religion and Science Compatible,” The Fountain, Issue 49, Jan.-Mar. 2005.

4 According to the Old Testament, the flood was global and was large enough to cover the entire surface of the earth, including the high mountains (Genesis 7, 11-20).

5 “Ayeten lil alemin” is only mentioned twice in the Qur’an. The first one is about Mary and Jesus’s miraculous birth from her (Anbiya 21:91), and the second is this one about the Great Flood. The phrase ayeten lil alemin is usually translated as “sign for all people”; but all people can only be a subset of what alemin really means. A similar phrase, rahmatan lil-alemin, is used for Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, in the Qur’an (Anbiya 21:107). Hamdi Yazir interprets this phrase as “mercy for all existence.” Ali Unal interprets the same phrase as “unequalled mercy for all the worlds.” So, it is fair in the context of the Great Flood to scrutinize the meaning of “sign for all people/worlds.”

6 It is curious that both in the Old Testament and in the Qur’an, water of the sky is distinctly mentioned aside the water of the earth. In the Old Testament, we are first told about the creation of the water of the sky (Genesis 1:6-8). When the time of the flood comes, the windows of the sky open (Genesis 7:11), and the flood is realized by the cooperation of the water of the skies and earth.

7 Two independent references to this end are a verse from the Qur’an and a hadith, given here respectively: “His (God’s) throne on water” Hud (11:7), “heaven is a sea whose waves have calmed” (Tirmidhi, Tafsir al-Surah 57/1; Musnad, 2/370). In both of these instances, the implicit or explicit use of the concept of water cannot be the water we drink.

8 Yazir, H., Exegesis of the chapter Hud, Hak Dini Kur’an Dili, Vol. 4.

As sleepers floated in their deepest slumbers

In purple and pink, successive dawns were swelling

While in waters swans were elegantly gliding

We felt the shivering breaths of a new spring.

A cerulean serenity had enveloped our dreams

And the sky winked with hope from a distance

In a moment, we were left without defenses

At the point where providence meets resolve

God made our dreams bloom.

The overflowing fountain has come to life again

Breezes high and low promising a bright future

Everywhere embraced by a blessed joy

And the happiest days of life I longed for

Were being lived in the deepest sense, once again.

A pristine spring, with its fresh verdant hues

Like the patterns and colors of the past

The people found the touchstone they had lost

Making up for the great loss they sought

Purple rosebuds on heavenly hills.

With the breeze blowing, now grasses atone

In the lands, once struck lifeless by autumn, are new roses

As if the Trumpet has blown, the dead are resurrected

Along with them in this azure dream

Grieving hearts attain reunion. 

In the light of the explanations above, modesty can be divided into two categories: an innate or instinctive feeling of shame, which prevent people from engaging in what is considered shameful and indecent, and modesty originating in belief, which constitutes an important, deep dimension of Islam.

Combining the instinctive feeling of shame with modesty based on Islam forms the greatest safeguard against shameful or indecent acts. Alone, each one may be diminished or utterly lost. If this innate feeling of shame is not combined with awareness coming from belief and expressed in verses like: Does he not know that God sees (all things)? (96:14) and consciousness of God’s constant oversight: God is ever watching over you (4:1), it cannot last long, for its endurance depends on belief. This essential relation between modesty and belief was expressed by God’s Messenger, who told a Companion after hearing his advice on modesty to another man: “Leave him, for modesty comes from belief.” He also said: “Belief has seventy or so divisions. Modesty is a division of belief.”

We may conclude from these Prophetic sayings that like other seeds of innate virtues, one’s natural feeling of shame develops to the extent it is strengthened with the forces and means that produce knowledge of God. It then becomes a dimension of one’s spiritual life, an obstacle against the carnal self’s excessive desires. If this feeling is not reinforced and developed with belief and knowledge of God or strengthened with consciousness of God’s constant oversight, and left to dissipate in sensual or carnal pleasure, one will witness in an individual or a community those indecencies and perversions that make anyone truly human ashamed of being human. The glory of mankind and the perfect example of modesty, upon him be peace and blessings, said: “If you have no modesty, do whatever you wish.”

The words haya (modesty or feeling of shame) and hayat (life) come from the same root. This signifies that modesty is a sign of a lively heart, and that a heart’s liveliness depends on its owner’s belief and knowledge of God. If a heart is not fed continuously with belief and knowledge of God, it is almost impossible for it to remain lively and give rise to modesty.

According to Junayd al-Baghdadi, haya means awareness of God’s bestowed material and immaterial bounties, and consciousness of personal defects and faults. Dhu al-Nun al-Misri holds that haya means that one constantly feels shame in his or her heart on account of personal sins and offenses, and is therefore careful about his or her actions. Another spiritual master defines haya as never forgetting how God treats one and ordering one’s life according to the fact that God sees all that is done and thought.

It is recorded in al-Qushayri’s Al-Risala that God declares: “O son of Adam! So long as you maintain your modesty and feeling of shame before Me, I make people forget your defects.” The Lord of Might and Dignity also said to Jesus, upon him be peace: “O Jesus, first advise your own selfhood. If it accepts your advice, then you may advise others, or else you must feel ashamed of yourself before Me.”

Some have mentioned different categories of modesty or shame. For example, the shame or modesty felt by:

– Adam, who felt guilty until he was forgiven.

– Angels for their heartfelt incapacity to give due worship to God, as expressed in their saying: “Glory be to You! We are unable to worship You as Your worship requires,” although they glorify Him day and night without stopping.

– Gnostics or those distinguished with knowledge of God in the face of His Majesty, despite their profound knowledge of Him, which they express as: “Glory be to You! We are unable to know You as Your knowledge requires.”

– The spiritually advanced when in awe of God, although they never give in to their carnal desires and ambitions.

– Those distinguished with utmost conviction of God because of their supposed distance from Him, although they always feel His infinite nearness despite the infinite distance of humanity from God Almighty.

– Lovers of God who feel disloyalty arising from their anxiety over not being able to love God as His love requires.

– Those who feel a lack of sufficient sincerity and do not know for what they must pray to God.

– Those exalted ones who are conscious of the fact that they, as human beings, have been honored with the fairest creation, because of the base acts of which they accuse themselves and which, according to them, are irreconcilable with being part of the fairest creation.

The first degree of modesty is to see oneself with the sight of God. That is, the person practices self-control or self-supervision according to God’s standards. This practice engenders a feeling of shame or modesty that produces extreme caution in thoughts and acts. Such a degree of modesty is found in people considered lively on account of their feelings and thoughts.

The second degree is proportional to one’s awareness of nearness to God, and the feeling of always being in His Presence. This can be experienced by those who are always conscious of the meaning of: He is with you wherever you may be (57:4), about which the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, said:

“Be as modest before God Almighty, as the necessity of being modest before Him requires. Let him who is blessed with this degree of modesty always control his mind and its contents, as well as his stomach and its contents. Let him always remember death and decay after it. One who desires the afterlife will renounce the adornments of the world. One who is able to do that can feel as much modesty before God as the necessity of being modest before Him requires.”

One can reach the third degree by deeply feeling the absolute Divine disposal of all things, by living a life of profound spirituality in pursuit of the final destination: And in your Lord is the final goal (53:42). The effort to reach this final goal continues throughout a whole life dedicated to following the path to Him.

One’s degree of modesty determines one’s true humanness. If a traveler cannot order his or her life and discipline his or her acts according to the demands of the eternal life and to live in utmost humility and modesty, then his or her existence is a personal shame and a burden to others, as stated in the following couplet:

By God, there is good neither in life
Nor in the world when modesty disappears.

Modesty is a Divine quality and mystery. If people knew to whom it essentially relates, they would act more carefully and sensitively. To illuminate this point, it is related that

God Almighty asks an old man on the Plain of Resurrection to account for his acts in the world: “Why did you commit such and such sins?” The old man denies that he had done so. So, the Most Compassionate of the Compassionate commands the angels: “Take him to Paradise.” The angels want to know why the Almighty has commanded so, although He knows that the old man committed those sins. The Almighty answers: “I know, but I looked at his white beard as one belonging to the Community of Muhammad and felt ashamed to tell him that I knew he was lying.”

As recorded in Kanz al-’Ummal, when the Archangel Gabriel told this to God’s Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, the Messenger’s eyes filled with tears and he said regretfully:

“God Almighty feels ashamed to punish those of my Community whose beards have turned white, but those of my Community with white beards do not feel ashamed to commit sins.”

To sum up:

Hayiy (All-Modest) is one of the Divine Names,
So strive and acquire modesty.

In this article we will review these three concepts and the relations among them by giving examples from the realms of both physical and metaphysical concepts.

Even though there is no universally accepted definition of analogy, or metaphor, or literal similarity, the purpose of their use is unanimously defined as “throwing light on an unfamiliar concept or situation using a familiar one.” The past few decades have witnessed several attempts of redefining these terms or at least extending a definition that is somewhat agreed-upon to an all-encompassing one. In so doing, researchers tended to employ mathematical structures that are by no means simple. What seems to differ from one approach to another is the method used in the process of establishing a correspondence between the familiar and the unfamiliar. Our purpose is not to give a full account of these approaches here, as there are so many of them, but rather to adapt one that is more convenient for conveying our examples.

Analogy: The word analogy is derived from the Greek word analogia. Originally, this was a mathematical (actually a musical) term before becoming a grammatical and linguistic one, meaning “proportion” (Szabo 1978, 23). An example of Aristotelian analogy is “spine is to fish as bone is to animal.” This simple analogy is generally formulated as A:B = C:D. We say, in this case, A and C are analogous. The sense in which A and C are analogous could be a property they have in common as well as the similarity between their relations to B and D, respectively. In the spine and bone example above we observe both. In the analogy “feet are to animal as wheels are to automobile,” however, feet and tires have virtually nothing in common, but they are analogous with respect to their functions within the bodies that they are part of, i.e., both are used as a means of transportation. Therefore, common relations are essential to analogy, but common objects are not. (Gentner-Markman 1997, 46).

One of the recent approaches to analogy which is widely used is the structure-mapping theory (SMT) (Dedre Gentner, 1983). It presumes a mapping between the familiar (domain or base) and the unfamiliar (target). The domain and the target consist of objects and relations among objects. SMT establishes a one-to-one correspondence between the objects of the domain and the target in a way that preserves the relations between objects (Those who are familiar with the category theory in mathematics will notice the resemblance of this mapping to a “covariant functor” between two “categories”). This is a “structural alignment” between the domain and the target (Gentner-Markman 1997, 47). In the “feet and wheels” example the mapping occurs between a body and an automobile. It maps feet to wheels and the relation TRANSPORT (feet, body) to the relation TRANSPORT (wheels, automobile). One can find more matching elements between a body and an automobile. For instance, we can match the heart of the body to the engine of the vehicle and observe that the relations RUN (heart, body) and RUN (engine, automobile) are preserved.

One might ask where do the arms get mapped? The answer is “nowhere.” We do not expect this mapping to match every object in the domain to an object in the target. The “power of the analogy” is not in the number of objects that are matched or the common attributes that the objects share. It is rather the degree of matching among relations that makes an analogy more powerful (Gentner 1982, 110).

Having introduced the concept of analogy by using some simple physical examples let’s now consider a not-so simple metaphysical situation.

In the 1920’s two mathematicians proved a very interesting but at the same time very puzzling theorem, known as the Banach-Tarski Paradox. In plain English, the theorem states that it is possible to divide a solid ball into a few pieces and reassemble those pieces together to make two balls, each of which has the same size as the original ball that was divided. A more striking consequence of their theorem is (you may want to sit down before you read this) a solid ball the size of a small pea can be cut into a number of pieces and reassembled into a new ball the size of the sun! Strange as it may sound, it is a valid mathematical argument, not a myth. (We have to note that it is not something one can do at home using a knife and a cutting board, because some of the pieces have no volume!) The analogy that we would like to establish under SMT is to map that solid ball of the theorem to a small amount of water which could quench the thirst of an army of about 30,000 in Tabuk in year 631. This was a miracle given to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. A similar miracle of Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, is described in the Bible, Matthew 14:21 (Volker Runde, in the Sky 2 (2000), 13–15).

Metaphor: The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. (Lakoff & Johnson 1980, 104) Simple examples are “What a sweet baby!” “Your car is a lemon, let’s take mine.” Obviously babies are not candies, nor are vehicles some sort of fruit. We use this sort of “identification” in order to communicate our ideas/feelings in a more striking way. Here are more examples of metaphors: “he is the apple of my eye,” “it’s raining cats and dogs,” “he has a golden heart,” “she cried rivers” etc. As these examples show, the distinguishing characteristic of metaphors is substitution, for example, rivers taking the place of tears in the last example. And this substitution takes place between different domains. If we say “a nightingale is a bird,” that’s not a metaphor; it’s a literal categorization, as both nightingale and bird signify the same domain (Gentner 2005, 200).

As long as the correspondence is not purely attributional, but some relations are also preserved we can also talk about structural alignment for metaphors (Gentner 88, 49). From this perspective, many metaphors are in fact analogies, but it’s the form of the language that helps us differentiate them. For example, “the engine is the heart of an automobile” is a metaphor, but it uses the same structural alignment of the analogical comparison that we mentioned above.

Nonetheless, not every metaphor is of this sort. Consider, for example, the verse (48:10) “God’s hand is over their hands” from the Qur’an; this was revealed in connection to some 1,400 believers’ pledging allegiance to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, under a tree in Hudaybiyah in year 628 by giving their hands to him. Whatever “God’s hand” in this verse refers to, whether it is to His power, His victory, His protection and blessings for the believers, or His acceptance of their pledge, it is far from being a physical hand. Therefore, we can not imagine a relation between dissimilar objects (Gentner 1982, 109; Gentner 2001, 204) that is mapped to the relation (Hand, God) under a structural alignment using SMT.

Literal similarity: If there is a considerable number of common attributes that are shared by the objects of the domain and the target then the comparison is more likely to be a literal similarity (Gentner 1982, 110). For example the comparison in the following verse of the Qur’an is a literal similarity: “Indeed, the example of Jesus to God is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, “Be,” and he was” (3:59). In this example there are a great number of attributes that Jesus and Adam (peace be upon them) share but only one of them is the subject of the comparison here, which is that both Jesus and Adam had no father. If Jesus also had no mother this would be an “identity,” not a similarity (Gentner 1982, 110).

The statement “Jesus is like Adam” makes much more sense than “Jesus is Adam,” even if we make it clear in what sense we use this identification. Typically metaphors use the word “is” and literal similarity comparisons (similes) use either of the words “like” or “as.” Mathematically speaking, if metaphors are equalities, then similes are approximations (Casnig).

Even though metaphors are substitutions, they are not necessarily “two-way” identifications. In other words, most of the times they are asymmetric; i.e., there is a sense of direction in the “identification.” For example, we never substitute a car in the place of a lemon and say “this lemon is a car.” This is because the first and foremost requirement of any comparison is that it be informative. What information do we obtain from the statement “rose is love” or “iron is fist”? In that respect many metaphors are irreversible, like similes: “a butcher like a surgeon” is quite different than “a surgeon like a butcher.” One is a compliment but the other is not! (Gentner 2001, 224). Perhaps irreversibility can also be taken as a distinguishing character of (at least attributional) metaphors.

Mathematical and metaphysical examples: Although there is no consensus on how mathematical ideas come about, it is certain that they are introduced into our world of knowledge by symbolism. Whether we associate a symbol to something physical, such as the symbol 70 to the weight of an object or the letter g to gravitational force, or to an abstract mathematical concept, such as the letter i to √–1, we are substituting one thing to mean another thing. We even associate symbols to concepts we cannot even describe, such as the concept of infinity and the symbol ∝ that is used to represent what it signifies in mathematics. From this perspective, mathematical symbols can be viewed as metaphors (Pimm, David 1981).

On the other hand mathematical formulas preserve the relations among the objects or concepts that they represent. In that respect, it is possible to see them as analogies as well. Therefore, they can be subjects of structural alignment. In the next example we will use SMT to form an analogical comparison between infinity and human life in order to better understand a Qur’anic verse.

In verse (5:32) of the Qur’an reads: “…he who kills a soul unless it be (punishment) for murder or for causing disorder and corruption on the earth will be as if he had killed all humankind; and he who saves a life will be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind…”

In a sense this verse means “one equals many.” How can that be? How can one be equal to a million? Or a billion? Those who know something about mathematics with infinities will remember that it is a quite different thing from mathematics with ordinary numbers. For example, if we add two infinities we still get infinity, i.e., ∝+∝=.∝=∝, something that never happens with any finite number, except for 0 (0+0=2.0=0). Likewise, if we add any number of infinities together we still get infinity: ∝+∝+∝+…∝=∝.Therefore, for any positive number m if we write m.∝=∝ it would be a perfectly acceptable mathematical statement.

Now, everyone will agree that there is no value one can associate to human life. Therefore, it’s fair to say that the value of human life is infinite. Let’s map “∝” to “saving the life of one person” under a structural alignment and let counting people in the target correspond to adding infinities in the domain. Now, if m represents the total number of lives on earth then what element should we associate to saving them altogether? The answer is m infinities added together, in other words m.∝ But seeing that m.∝ is equal to ∝ we can say that saving the lives of all people on earth is no different than saving the life of one individual! That’s how one can equal many. Now, if we map “killing an innocent person” to “–∝” then we clearly see that the mathematical statement m.(-∝)=-∝translates into “killing all innocent people on earth is as grave a sin as killing one.”

Note that this “one equals many” situation is not a violation of the requirement that structure mapping be one-to-one (Gentner-Markman 1997, 47). It’s a relation that occurs between the objects of the domain and the objects of the target and that relation is preserved under a one-to-one structure mapping.

Another relation between infinities is that “∝-∝” is indeterminate. In particular “∝-∝” is not necessarily 0. Using the analogy we just constructed we can translate this as “killing one innocent person and saving the life of another does not balance out.” Then, “∝-∝” is indeterminate” translates as “we cannot know if God will forgive that person for saving a life or punish him/her for taking one; it depends on which ∝ is greater!” Indeed, those who have taken calculus will remember that “∝-∝” sometimes turns out to be a positive number and sometimes a negative number; as well as 0 or ∝ or -∝

One could ask, what about m.0=0? Isn’t this also true? Yes, indeed “the sum of m zeros is equal to zero” is another mathematically accurate statement. Then, what meaning could this equation be given? Perhaps this would be the “murderer’s” version of the Qur’anic principle that we mentioned above: “When the life of an individual has “no value” in your heart, killing one person or a million people should be equally disheartening (!)”

Another mathematical tool that would be helpful in interpreting the above-mentioned principle is a technique that is used in mathematical proofs. When proving a fact about a set of elements in mathematics one proves it for an arbitrarily chosen member of the set and it is automatically generalized to the rest of the elements in the set. For example, in order to prove the statement “the square root of every prime number is irrational” we choose a prime number, say p, arbitrarily and prove the statement for it. Once we do that it is as if we proved that √2 is irrational, √3 is irrational, √5 is irrational etc. It covers all the numbers in the form √p, where p is a prime number. In the same way, when one kills an innocent person the message that it is acceptable to kill “any” innocent person is given, as the choice of person has been made arbitrarily. Therefore, this can be likened to killing all of mankind because being able to kill one person is simply generalized to all people who could be in that person’s shoes.

Summary: In this article we have given examples of analogy, metaphor, and literal similarity and have tried to indicate some distinguishing characters that set them apart. We included some uncommon metaphysical phenomena which have been placed in analogical correspondence with mathematical quantities with the intention of showing that mathematics can be used to shed light on purely religious concepts as well.

Yusuf Ziya Gurtas is an assistant professor of mathematics in Queensborough Community College, CUNY.

References

• Casnig, John D. 1997–2009. A Language of Metaphors. Knowgramming.com. Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
• Gentner, Dedre. 1982. “Are scientific analogies metaphors?” in David S. Miall (Ed.), Metaphor, Problems and Perspectives, Brighton, England: Harvester Press, pp. 106–132.
• –. 1983. “Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy.” Cognitive Science, 7, pp. 155–170.
• –. 1988. “Metaphor as Structure Mapping: The Relational Shift.” Child Development, 59, 47–59.
• Gentner, Dedre & Markman, Arthur D. 1997. “Structure Mapping in Analogy and Similarity.” American Psychologist, 52, 45–56.
• Gentner, Dedre, Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. 2001. “Metaphor is like analogy” in D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. Kokinov (Eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 199–253.
• Gentner, Dedre & Bowdle, Brian F. 2005. “The Career of Metaphor.” Psychological Review, 112, pp. 193–216.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Pimm, David. 1981. “Metaphor and Analogy in Mathematics.” For the Learning of Mathematics, 1, 47–50.
• Runde, Volker. 2000. “The Banach-Tarski Paradox or What Mathematics and Miracles Have in Common.” in the Sky, 2, 13–15.
• Szabo, A. 1978. The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

The example given above-not stealing customers’ money versus not being a rich person-is just one possible case among others which human beings feel tension because of conflicting cognitions. Most people have personal beliefs, principles, and values shaping their lives fundamentally. Psychologists use the concept of cognition to imply all of these factors that guide our choices. Cognitions regulate our lives at any moment regardless of our consciousness of them. For instance, some people could venture everything to have more money because they have a cognition whispering “money, money, money,” or others can sacrifice everything for the sake of beliefs because of their cognition, “I believe therefore I am.” Even though human beings feel good when these cognitions drive us to success, good decisions, and a satisfying life, they turn out to be a source of frustration when a certain cognition conflicts with another one. In such cases, what we usually do is to find a way to resolve the conflict because we do not like to live with this tension. How then can we cope with this conflict?

The most common attitude under such circumstances is “self-justification.” If we turn to our example, Peter chose one of the two alternatives: continue to steal his customers’ money in order to become a rich person. Now he must find a good reason to justify himself and reduce his inner conflict:

“Not stealing is not the only way of being an honest person. You cannot be a bad guy just because of one unique behavior in your life, given that other people are also committing such sins, even worse sometimes.”

“My customers are the richest people in the State; it is not greed if I want them to share some of their money. Actually, they do not deserve it at all.”

“I did that to ensure the future happiness of my family; I know that making your family happy is more important than being honest.”

There can be many other reasons or justifications for such a behavior. The truth is that, Peter is trying to convince himself about his behavior. Although people’s attempts to convince themselves are not necessarily rational, they try to rationalize their behaviors by changing their cognitions or adding new ones.

All of the above are in the simple processes of Leon Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance. He contends that when an individual has two or more cognitions (beliefs, opinions, ideas etc.) which are inconsistent with each other, then tension emerges and people attempt to reduce this tension. How can the tension be reduced? The answer is through changing one or both cognitions or by adding new cognitions to alleviate discrepancies between cognitions. Our behaviors in such situations will determine the way we behave the next time we encounter a similar situation. Our ultimate behavior will depend on the strength of one’s cognitions (Aronson, 2004). If being a rich person is more important than not being greedy, a person is more likely to choose to steal money.

It is critical that the choice does not have to be right or rational. Let’s remember Peter’s excuses for stealing. He tended to believe that stealing was not as bad as he thought before because he found some justifications. Now he seems to feel better, but what about the next step? Most probably, he will continue to steal. As one can easily see, dissonance reduction is mostly an irrational behavior. Apparently, these irrational behaviors help people to defend their “self” or “ego.” Through the help of these irrational beliefs, people continue to define themselves as if they are good, smart, decent, or generous people. The underlying motive is the need for self-justification.

Cognitive dissonance from the perspective of religion

There are many musts and must-nots in a believer’s mind. One common practice of dissonance reduction appears at a point where one must choose between committing a sin or making a righteous decision. While preaching or reading holy books nurtures spiritual “cognitions” in a religious mind, obeying concupiscence and chasing essentially worldly goals will weaken this. After every sin that a believer committed, the battle of the cognitions starts between “I am a religious guy” and “I committed a sin, therefore I am not a decent person.” Since these cognitions cannot live peacefully together in a religious mind, one of the conflicting cognitions will grow out of this battle.

This process meshes with a religious idea that “Within each sin is a path leading to unbelief” (Nursi, The Second Gleam). If a person insists on performing a sinful act, he starts to disdain his sin. After a while, as he keeps behaving in the same manner, he becomes addicted to the sin and tends to see it as a normal act. Instead of acknowledging that the sins are witnessed by the angels and seen by God, an unrighteous man may like the idea that they may not exist at all, which is again comforting. With that idea, the cognition of “I am a religious person” is surpassed by a new cognition, “Maybe the religion that I accepted has some flaws” or “is questionable” which were added to relieve the pain arising from the cognition “I am not a good person.” From this point of view, people’s preferences about their beliefs are not independent of their behaviors which foster or challenge their religious cognitions.

One’s tendency to justify himself is usual but may not be what ought-to-be from the moral point of view. As people justify themselves, they will ignore whatever is wrong with their behaviors or cognitions, which will make them insensitive. Going beyond psychology’s objective description of human beings as rationalizing or justifying beings, religious sources suggest rejecting self-justification in most of cases. The Qur’an quotes the Prophet Joseph: “Yet I do not claim my self free of error, for assuredly the human carnal soul always commands evil, except that my Lord has mercy. Surely my Lord is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate” (Yusuf 12:53). This means, self-awareness about the conflicting cognitions is critical for human beings. When the person has inconsistent cognitions, choosing the option that does not solely serve to justify himself will prevent the person from going toward unbelief. Christianity also pointed to the importance of facing up to our sins: “I acknowledged my sin to You, and in my iniquity I have not hidden. I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and You forgave the iniquity of my sin” (Psalms 32:5).

Between the good and bad

Human cognitions determine their choices and actions, which in turn nurture, shape or weaken our cognitions. Repeating a sin a second time is easier than the first time, and we feel less dissonance because cognitions creating dissonance are replaced by those that bring inner comfort. People who exhibit extremely deviant and sociopathic behaviors should be reconsidered from this point of view. Extremely deviant behaviors should be considered a series of earlier choices which gradually led to the ultimate misconduct rather than the consequence of a unique decision made at a specific time.

Another possible implication of the theory of cognitive dissonance is the difficulty with judging absolute good or bad. Given the fact that cognitions may become weaker or stronger, personal views on the appropriateness of behaviors are subject to change. Human cognitions are potential mechanisms that lead one to behave in a certain way. Therefore, deviant behaviors might have a long history fed by the cognitions which turn out to be one’s rationale for inappropriate behaviors. As a result, cognitive dissonance uncovers the gray area between the continuum of good and bad through which human beings swing all the time.

Conclusion

Cognitive dissonance theory provides convincing explanations about how human beings make their decisions and behave in a moral or immoral manner. Also, it brings a resourceful perspective to illuminate spiritual experiences. It successfully explains how people swing on the path from good to bad and vice versa instead of considering them as dwelling on two discrete entities. Awareness of the above-mentioned processes is critical to increase self-awareness.

One last comment should be made about the role of conscience in cognitive dissonance. Although cognitive dissonance theory successfully explains many cognitive processes, a mental faculty that is responsible for recognizing the discrepancy in our cognitions and regulating the balance between them is conscience. However, psychology’s account of conscience is rather limited and inconclusive. Psychology offers evidence of the way human beings behave in dissonant situations. Religious resources, however, provide prescriptive guidelines to remain on the right track. As in the case of this unique theory, understanding the theories of psychology as well as making sense of them in the light of religious texts provides individuals with a heightened self-awareness.

References

• Aronson, E. 2004. The Social Animal, 9th edition, Worth Publishers: New York, NY
• Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.